Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225616 --- Comment #4 from Petr Machata <pmachata@xxxxxxxxxx> 2008-09-15 09:54:02 EDT --- Committed a cleaned-up version into rawhide. No build done. * Fixed the dot in summary and %-escaped macros in changelog * Source files in main package are needed in run-time by M4. They don't belong to separate devel package. * That runtime package lacks documentation... well, it does, but then these are just language files that the parser needs during the runtime. If you think that a note is necessary, I can write something up, but given it's just a package-dependency package, and not strictly a user-facing package, I'm inclined to just leave it alone. Similar for devel. Please advise. * That .a is packaged at all: this case is similar to .a packaged with flex. It's a tiny library, with just 'main' and 'yyerror' symbols in that. It's extremely stable, these functions are just a couple lines of source code, hence the overhead of introducing dynamic library outweighs the benefits. Some users still use these instead of providing their own defs, I know I got my share of complaints when I dropped .a from flex. * That .a is part of -devel. Well, it could be -static, but the split was done in Jan 2005, which predates current guidelines regarding the same. I can see a logic in that: the library is devel in the sense that the generated parser could be distributed together with other sources, and only bison-devel would be necessary to wrap the build. (Although I'll admit it's kinda fuzzy reasoning.) Again, please advise. FWIW, 144 packages depend on bison in F9, and nothing on bison-devel. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review